having been discussing the topic of A Level subjects with my daughter yesterday we came to the conclusion that for many people the 'academic' subjects were the only one which had any worth or value. We reckoned that for many, the educational system existed with a few subclasses, namely:
Proper Subjects
Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology (AKA The 'Academic' subjects)
Moderately Proper Subjects
English (Language and Literature), French, German, Law.
Fluffy Subjects
Art, Music, Geography, History, Religious education, Physchology, Physical Education, Drama, General Studies (AKA the 'Easy Option ' or dossing subjects)
Defunct Subjects
Citizenship
Today on Radio Four's episode of 'The Archers' we were entertained by the missing of an examination by one of the cast. But, not to worry for it was only 'RE' and there wasn't a problem as the missing pupil had promised to be present at the proper subjects, Maths and English!
It was once held that theology was the Queen of all the sciences and the foundation upon which all academic excellence stands was English. But it seems that we now see education as merely being the means by which we train our children to maximise their earning potential rather than develop their skills and extend their abilities.
Where is enjoyment and creativity in our education system? The answer us that there is little or none!
Why? Because we've lost the plot and are seeking to produce cloned drones rather than intelligent and creative, free-thinking individuals.
Sad isn't it?
Pax
Friday, 10 June 2011
Coalition Actions Explained!
Suddenly it all makes sense - the coalition is merely following Rowan's lead ;)
Happy Friday
HRH - The Duke Of Edinburgh
Birthday Greetings to a man who is not only the longest serving British consort but is a man who has served this country faithfully and well.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Rowan - Political Commentator or Priest?
And all along I thought he was supposed to be concerned with matters spiritual. Explains a lot and makes sense of the often shambolic and ill-focussed goings on that we have within the Church of England! He thinks he's Robin Day in a dog-collar.
Funny that when I read of Rowan's warning that the government is committing Britain to "radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted" I immediately was drawn back to the heady days of Tony Bliar's government. You must remember them, they were elected because they 'weren't Conservatives'.
The policies they brought in had little or no mandate, they just did what they wanted because they were elected purely and simply on the basis that they 'weren't Conservative'. Then, to put a cherry on the cake we had regime change as Brown was given the stick with the pig's bladders attached! And he brought in new policies which had never seen the light of manifesto or husting again.
There has been 'indignation' at the reforms brought in by the previous Labour government and the current coalition and for good reason. The problem is the Labour Party used the open mandate that was gifted to them for not being Conservative and the coalition have been gifted the same because of the totally inept actions of a party who lined the pockets of supporters through PFI, Quango and other 'favours' (including Adonis and his gifting of land, capital and the demise of state education that appears to be Academies) and handed over the right to do pretty much as they please because they made the nation a morally, socially and best of all, a financially bankrupt entity!
Rather than mumble about the 'Big Society' as something that is viewed with 'widespread suspicion' Rowan would do better to motivate and mobilise the troops (the Church) to take back the pastoral and caring birthright which it has handed over of a mess of social state pottage!
We are seeing some things happen far too quickly, but the spectre of financial peril (seen Eire, Greece and Portugal lately?) perhaps does justify some of this (but not all) and we need to be sure that we are not standing by as the Lib Dem acts as puppets to permit some 'evening up of the scores and wounds of old!'.
Speaking of democracy, people don't know what democracy means anymore because they don't understand what a majority is! Wanting everyone to have a voice and be making the decisions, mathematically manipulating results to overcome voter apathy and skewed ideas of what and who should be elected - this is not constitutional (or national) politics but the politics of Bedlam and displays something worrying about our nation as a whole (We are becoming Golgafrinchams in that "We're all bloody useless!").
Having read the piece I think it shows the mark of an intelligent man, for Rowan is no fool, but I wonder whether they are the words of a spiritual leader. It is for this reason I am saddened and more than a little downhearted, for as much as I get frustrated at politicians who spout on about faith and Christ in particular, leaving me with the wish that they'd stick to what they know, I feel with this that I wish he'd preach the Gospel rather than be yet another political (and the words could almost be those of an agnostic or atheist, couldn't they) commentator.
As it stands, a good piece and some great points - but where was the Christian influence? Where is the Christian outworking? Where was the Christian (soteriological) imperative, where is the 'Good News' (The Gospel)? Sadly not that evident here.
Now I know many will accuse him of merely attacking the coalition, but I don't think he is. He's knocking the sad situation of popularist and envy, score-settling politics. He's bemoaning the global issues that are handled in ways that leave us sighing. Valid and reasonable - but where is the Christ in his writings? He had more to say about Bin Laden's death than many of the Christian issues that need comment upon and he has before him a church that is divided and breaking for want of some leadership and shrewd assessment, much as he shows in matters secular!
Pax
Read the whole leader here
Funny that when I read of Rowan's warning that the government is committing Britain to "radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted" I immediately was drawn back to the heady days of Tony Bliar's government. You must remember them, they were elected because they 'weren't Conservatives'.
The policies they brought in had little or no mandate, they just did what they wanted because they were elected purely and simply on the basis that they 'weren't Conservative'. Then, to put a cherry on the cake we had regime change as Brown was given the stick with the pig's bladders attached! And he brought in new policies which had never seen the light of manifesto or husting again.
There has been 'indignation' at the reforms brought in by the previous Labour government and the current coalition and for good reason. The problem is the Labour Party used the open mandate that was gifted to them for not being Conservative and the coalition have been gifted the same because of the totally inept actions of a party who lined the pockets of supporters through PFI, Quango and other 'favours' (including Adonis and his gifting of land, capital and the demise of state education that appears to be Academies) and handed over the right to do pretty much as they please because they made the nation a morally, socially and best of all, a financially bankrupt entity!
Rather than mumble about the 'Big Society' as something that is viewed with 'widespread suspicion' Rowan would do better to motivate and mobilise the troops (the Church) to take back the pastoral and caring birthright which it has handed over of a mess of social state pottage!
We are seeing some things happen far too quickly, but the spectre of financial peril (seen Eire, Greece and Portugal lately?) perhaps does justify some of this (but not all) and we need to be sure that we are not standing by as the Lib Dem acts as puppets to permit some 'evening up of the scores and wounds of old!'.
Speaking of democracy, people don't know what democracy means anymore because they don't understand what a majority is! Wanting everyone to have a voice and be making the decisions, mathematically manipulating results to overcome voter apathy and skewed ideas of what and who should be elected - this is not constitutional (or national) politics but the politics of Bedlam and displays something worrying about our nation as a whole (We are becoming Golgafrinchams in that "We're all bloody useless!").
Having read the piece I think it shows the mark of an intelligent man, for Rowan is no fool, but I wonder whether they are the words of a spiritual leader. It is for this reason I am saddened and more than a little downhearted, for as much as I get frustrated at politicians who spout on about faith and Christ in particular, leaving me with the wish that they'd stick to what they know, I feel with this that I wish he'd preach the Gospel rather than be yet another political (and the words could almost be those of an agnostic or atheist, couldn't they) commentator.
As it stands, a good piece and some great points - but where was the Christian influence? Where is the Christian outworking? Where was the Christian (soteriological) imperative, where is the 'Good News' (The Gospel)? Sadly not that evident here.
Now I know many will accuse him of merely attacking the coalition, but I don't think he is. He's knocking the sad situation of popularist and envy, score-settling politics. He's bemoaning the global issues that are handled in ways that leave us sighing. Valid and reasonable - but where is the Christ in his writings? He had more to say about Bin Laden's death than many of the Christian issues that need comment upon and he has before him a church that is divided and breaking for want of some leadership and shrewd assessment, much as he shows in matters secular!
Pax
Read the whole leader here
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Pentecost in the Park
Every year the Tamworth Covenanting Churches gather in the Castle grounds to celebrate Pentecost and this year, being no different (and since we haven't been raptured), we will be doing it all again, but with a difference.
The difference this year is that we will be having 'Sounds of Salvation' who describe themselves as:
"A high-octane, ska rock punk Christian worship band with a horn section that will blow your face off. Formed in 2004 they travel the length and breadth of the country worshipping God with a sound that has been likened to setting an elephant loose on marching band. But it's not all about the music; SoS love to celebrate God's glory with a vibrant energy that will get you off your feet and dancing like your dad in no time."
So, if you're in the Tamworth area this Sunday and want to learn how to skank for jesus (now there's a thought), get a picnic, pray for sunshine and come on over.
The difference this year is that we will be having 'Sounds of Salvation' who describe themselves as:
"A high-octane, ska rock punk Christian worship band with a horn section that will blow your face off. Formed in 2004 they travel the length and breadth of the country worshipping God with a sound that has been likened to setting an elephant loose on marching band. But it's not all about the music; SoS love to celebrate God's glory with a vibrant energy that will get you off your feet and dancing like your dad in no time."
So, if you're in the Tamworth area this Sunday and want to learn how to skank for jesus (now there's a thought), get a picnic, pray for sunshine and come on over.
1pm - Castle Grounds Bandstand (below the castle)
Sunday 12th June 2011
Sunday 12th June 2011
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Naked Model poster
As a techie type I spent a great deal of my work life in workshops and engineering 'circuit rooms' which, as was the norm those days, being a totally male preserve meant that the pin ups and posters adorned lockers and walls.
Later, having move up the ladder (literally and figuratively) I found myself inhabiting a world where such images were frowned upon and then we became 'sensitive' to the feelings of those around us and women stopped being sex objects and became 'mates'. We had female techies, the Air Training Corps allowed girls to join (1983) and the world became a different place.
The problem that I have is that people don't realise that stereotyping and sexism is quite subtle and that there are such extremes taken that, as an example, if one entered a room with nine men and one woman in it, the correct greeting is "good morning all." I encounter a number of people who come in and say something like, "Good morning gentlemen, and lady,: and they aren't aware that this is considered sexist and infringes the rules of sexist behaviour in the workplace. Taking things too far? I couldn't possibly say (or should I?)
Anything that draws attention to a person because they are different is regarded as being wrong and in today's military setting, this behaviour is both frowned, and acted, upon. The same is true within many of the other public service settings (in fact, as a quad-service Equality and Diversity Advisor, I have to say that this is supposed to be true for all military and civil service settings) such that nicknames are taboo and drawing attention to any personal, physical or other discernible characteristic is a 'no no'. That said, when on a course with a number of dog-collars, I ended up with the label 'Dutch' to identity me from 'Scots Chaplain' and 'tall chaplain' (the other was just called 'chaplain'). Was I offended? No! But some are sensitive and so even though it added an element of sun to the proceedings, technically it was wrong!
I have mixed feelings about the Body Shop posters which speak of the ridiculous figures on some of the children's dolls, the 'ideal' (yet generally impossible) 'perfect woman as seen by those on the catwalks and points out that few women are built like them. I like the campaigns that call for 'real women' to be models as should it work I might find myself less burdened by women who struggle over they way they look (Size eight is enormous - just look at . . . .). My problem is that although the point being made is valid, the image it presents is one that surely makes the female figure a sex-object and therefore wins a point and yet loses one (or even two) in the doing so!
At the end of the day, it is clever advertising because everyone will stop and look at it. Most will agree but in doing so, are we not perhaps just creating a new stereotype rather than applauding a point?
I think there is much dialogue to be had over this whole issue, for their is a marked degree of immaturity and misunderstanding, personal hangup and very conditional assessment involved. For some it will set them free, for others it will increase their bondage - but that's life (I hear you say), so why do I have a slight feeling of unease?
Pax
Later, having move up the ladder (literally and figuratively) I found myself inhabiting a world where such images were frowned upon and then we became 'sensitive' to the feelings of those around us and women stopped being sex objects and became 'mates'. We had female techies, the Air Training Corps allowed girls to join (1983) and the world became a different place.
The problem that I have is that people don't realise that stereotyping and sexism is quite subtle and that there are such extremes taken that, as an example, if one entered a room with nine men and one woman in it, the correct greeting is "good morning all." I encounter a number of people who come in and say something like, "Good morning gentlemen, and lady,: and they aren't aware that this is considered sexist and infringes the rules of sexist behaviour in the workplace. Taking things too far? I couldn't possibly say (or should I?)
Anything that draws attention to a person because they are different is regarded as being wrong and in today's military setting, this behaviour is both frowned, and acted, upon. The same is true within many of the other public service settings (in fact, as a quad-service Equality and Diversity Advisor, I have to say that this is supposed to be true for all military and civil service settings) such that nicknames are taboo and drawing attention to any personal, physical or other discernible characteristic is a 'no no'. That said, when on a course with a number of dog-collars, I ended up with the label 'Dutch' to identity me from 'Scots Chaplain' and 'tall chaplain' (the other was just called 'chaplain'). Was I offended? No! But some are sensitive and so even though it added an element of sun to the proceedings, technically it was wrong!
I have mixed feelings about the Body Shop posters which speak of the ridiculous figures on some of the children's dolls, the 'ideal' (yet generally impossible) 'perfect woman as seen by those on the catwalks and points out that few women are built like them. I like the campaigns that call for 'real women' to be models as should it work I might find myself less burdened by women who struggle over they way they look (Size eight is enormous - just look at . . . .). My problem is that although the point being made is valid, the image it presents is one that surely makes the female figure a sex-object and therefore wins a point and yet loses one (or even two) in the doing so!
At the end of the day, it is clever advertising because everyone will stop and look at it. Most will agree but in doing so, are we not perhaps just creating a new stereotype rather than applauding a point?
I think there is much dialogue to be had over this whole issue, for their is a marked degree of immaturity and misunderstanding, personal hangup and very conditional assessment involved. For some it will set them free, for others it will increase their bondage - but that's life (I hear you say), so why do I have a slight feeling of unease?
Pax
Monday, 6 June 2011
More Christianity, less religion!
So often I come to the conclusion that former CGS (Chief of General Staff, ie. the head of the Army) Lord Dannatt's view of Northern Ireland as a young officer serving there applies also to the Church of England in particular and Church in general.
The observation is that there was, "A great deal of religion but not much Christianity!"
Speaking of the fact that I don't consider homosexuality to be 'the' one defining issue I was made aware that that wasn't enough and that the whole point had to be pushed until the issue was not just accepted but approved of as the 'norm'. Not only that but the ground had to be taken such that those who opposed the practice of homosexuality as a Christian lifestyle were removed rather than merely 'pushed back'. The (proclaimed) goal is 'tolerance' but the objective is (in reality) conquest and the tactics appear to be the very same as employed in 1935 by a nation not that far from these shores!
First you mock them, adding a little dehumanisation and a sprinkling of ad hominem such that the general populace ridicule and speak out against them. Continue by spreading lies and misrepresentations so that passions and opinions (especially in these days of natural justice, PR and equality) are stirred up. Then remove the culprits (for we all know who they are, they just don't were 'jude' badges these days) and make the world a better place.
It works for 'homophobes', i.e. those for whom there is no 'fear' only a feeling that being actively homosexual crosses the line in terms of Bible, tradition and reason (AKA 'orthodox').
It works for 'misogynists', i.e. Those who don't 'hate women' but feel that there is a difference between male and female and perhaps (in some cases) are being faithful to the Church view that they joined with.
The problem is that we cannot merely speak of being enlightened and point to our being 'more intelligent' than the early Church (isn't that what we perhaps do with anabaptism?) or more understanding of the texts (surely those who wrote them were aware of the power and import of their words?).
I am aware that there are those who seek to justify their contraventions of Biblical entreaties and commands by reinvention, revision or merely discarding of that which opposes their chosen actions and behaviours (note. You can be made anything you like, that isn't a choice - but how you live it out is, always, a choice.). I do care about the fact that we all make ourselves right so we may do what is wrong before God and thus condemn ourselves, and those who follow us and this skewed and wrong teachings, to exist outside of that which God demands.
Alas for you lawyers and Pharisees, you hypocrites.
Taking and making your converts twice as fit for hell as you are!
But blessed are those who hear God's commandments and keep them.
But if you deny God and teach error,
How do you think you will escape the time of trial?
How do you think cursing speaks of a God of love?
Or lies bear witness to a God of truth?
Religion is man's ultimate rebellion against God (or so Marx said),
Christianity is God's ultimate rebellion against sin!
I'd rather face the anger of sinners than have to explain why I was silent before them,
How I failed to speak against their sinful actions to God on the final day.
How about you?
Pax
The observation is that there was, "A great deal of religion but not much Christianity!"
Speaking of the fact that I don't consider homosexuality to be 'the' one defining issue I was made aware that that wasn't enough and that the whole point had to be pushed until the issue was not just accepted but approved of as the 'norm'. Not only that but the ground had to be taken such that those who opposed the practice of homosexuality as a Christian lifestyle were removed rather than merely 'pushed back'. The (proclaimed) goal is 'tolerance' but the objective is (in reality) conquest and the tactics appear to be the very same as employed in 1935 by a nation not that far from these shores!
First you mock them, adding a little dehumanisation and a sprinkling of ad hominem such that the general populace ridicule and speak out against them. Continue by spreading lies and misrepresentations so that passions and opinions (especially in these days of natural justice, PR and equality) are stirred up. Then remove the culprits (for we all know who they are, they just don't were 'jude' badges these days) and make the world a better place.
It works for 'homophobes', i.e. those for whom there is no 'fear' only a feeling that being actively homosexual crosses the line in terms of Bible, tradition and reason (AKA 'orthodox').
It works for 'misogynists', i.e. Those who don't 'hate women' but feel that there is a difference between male and female and perhaps (in some cases) are being faithful to the Church view that they joined with.
The problem is that we cannot merely speak of being enlightened and point to our being 'more intelligent' than the early Church (isn't that what we perhaps do with anabaptism?) or more understanding of the texts (surely those who wrote them were aware of the power and import of their words?).
I am aware that there are those who seek to justify their contraventions of Biblical entreaties and commands by reinvention, revision or merely discarding of that which opposes their chosen actions and behaviours (note. You can be made anything you like, that isn't a choice - but how you live it out is, always, a choice.). I do care about the fact that we all make ourselves right so we may do what is wrong before God and thus condemn ourselves, and those who follow us and this skewed and wrong teachings, to exist outside of that which God demands.
Alas for you lawyers and Pharisees, you hypocrites.
Taking and making your converts twice as fit for hell as you are!
But blessed are those who hear God's commandments and keep them.
But if you deny God and teach error,
How do you think you will escape the time of trial?
How do you think cursing speaks of a God of love?
Or lies bear witness to a God of truth?
Religion is man's ultimate rebellion against God (or so Marx said),
Christianity is God's ultimate rebellion against sin!
I'd rather face the anger of sinners than have to explain why I was silent before them,
How I failed to speak against their sinful actions to God on the final day.
How about you?
Pax
Sunday, 5 June 2011
For or Against?
That was the question posed to the religious type in the latest 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.
The response was that he was neither for or against the pirates. "Can he do that," asked another of the crew, "Of course he can, he's religious!" was the response!
As the pirates approached the water of life, the Spaniards arrived, not to drink of the waters of eternal life but to destroy it. "Eternal life is a gift from the Lord alone," they cried. Oh how we cheered. Sadly though, the 'Christian' hero ends up going off with a mermaid and seeks his salvation in the arms of some fishy woman (not the first Christian to do that I assume) but it makes you (well, me) think about how Christians are portrayed.
One of the big problems with being a Christian is that we appear to have a few distinct groups, each with their own problems and each causing problems because of their views and attitudes.
Neither for or against brigade
These are the luke warm, pain in the butt, the meek shall inherit the earth types who look at everything and avoid making an assessment. Because they dare not speak out in case they offend, we find that they are used to endorse the behaviour and attitudes that the Bible speaks against. They assume that because they haven't said 'yes' that they are not in league with the naughty people and yet because they haven't said 'no' they are not in conflict with them either. A passive middle road that speaks of being Christian and well thought of by all.
The everything (except what I believe) is wrong brigade
Now, just in case you think that these are made up of the 'I'm an orthodox (or Mainstream) Christian, get out of here" types, you are wrong for this group also holds the "I'm a liberal (or revisionist) get out of here" types too!
These are the people who decide that they are the only people with any warrant to exist within the Church and that everyone else has to go - no discussion, no dialogue (indaba what?). They are so taken up with the infighting and factions that they ignore the evangelistic mission of the Church to the secular world. they're not seeking to change the world, they merely want the world to be as they want it to be and tolerate no other opinion.
The 'everybody's friend' brigade
These are the people who, in my opinion, are turning the Church into the world. They seek to be popular and so at their hands the Church adopts everything that the world sees as acceptable in the hope that it will attract some of those formerly excluded by the Church. The problem is that the Church is called to be (as were the Jews) 'counter cultural'. Our religious book (AKA the Bible) and or teachings (AKA traditions) demand from us certain behaviour and attitudes and because these aren't popular with those outside (because it calls upon them to act in ways that they choose not to) we merely 'revise' what being Christian is to allow them to wear a label that effectively means nothing.
I do try to be everybody's friend, but I am also aware that I have a duty to speak out when I see something that is wrong in terms of the Christian teachings as they have been for a couple of thousand years. I understand the patristic errors and know about the organisational errors handed down by the RC plc element that ran the show before we were CofE and understand the reasons people developed, practiced and continue to research what christian is. But at the end of the day it boils down to this:
Jesus dies for each of us, by name, personally, individually,
We are called to put off those things which deny Christ and which cause us to do wrong stuff (that's called 'sin')
we are called to lead others into knowledge and relationship with Christ so that we might be one with the Father, enabled by the Spirit.
We are called to warn and correct those who are caught up in sin (gently) so that we don't become sin in doing it.
Neither for or against - don't think we can live with that as a mantra, do you?
Pax
The response was that he was neither for or against the pirates. "Can he do that," asked another of the crew, "Of course he can, he's religious!" was the response!
As the pirates approached the water of life, the Spaniards arrived, not to drink of the waters of eternal life but to destroy it. "Eternal life is a gift from the Lord alone," they cried. Oh how we cheered. Sadly though, the 'Christian' hero ends up going off with a mermaid and seeks his salvation in the arms of some fishy woman (not the first Christian to do that I assume) but it makes you (well, me) think about how Christians are portrayed.
One of the big problems with being a Christian is that we appear to have a few distinct groups, each with their own problems and each causing problems because of their views and attitudes.
Neither for or against brigade
These are the luke warm, pain in the butt, the meek shall inherit the earth types who look at everything and avoid making an assessment. Because they dare not speak out in case they offend, we find that they are used to endorse the behaviour and attitudes that the Bible speaks against. They assume that because they haven't said 'yes' that they are not in league with the naughty people and yet because they haven't said 'no' they are not in conflict with them either. A passive middle road that speaks of being Christian and well thought of by all.
The everything (except what I believe) is wrong brigade
Now, just in case you think that these are made up of the 'I'm an orthodox (or Mainstream) Christian, get out of here" types, you are wrong for this group also holds the "I'm a liberal (or revisionist) get out of here" types too!
These are the people who decide that they are the only people with any warrant to exist within the Church and that everyone else has to go - no discussion, no dialogue (indaba what?). They are so taken up with the infighting and factions that they ignore the evangelistic mission of the Church to the secular world. they're not seeking to change the world, they merely want the world to be as they want it to be and tolerate no other opinion.
The 'everybody's friend' brigade
These are the people who, in my opinion, are turning the Church into the world. They seek to be popular and so at their hands the Church adopts everything that the world sees as acceptable in the hope that it will attract some of those formerly excluded by the Church. The problem is that the Church is called to be (as were the Jews) 'counter cultural'. Our religious book (AKA the Bible) and or teachings (AKA traditions) demand from us certain behaviour and attitudes and because these aren't popular with those outside (because it calls upon them to act in ways that they choose not to) we merely 'revise' what being Christian is to allow them to wear a label that effectively means nothing.
I do try to be everybody's friend, but I am also aware that I have a duty to speak out when I see something that is wrong in terms of the Christian teachings as they have been for a couple of thousand years. I understand the patristic errors and know about the organisational errors handed down by the RC plc element that ran the show before we were CofE and understand the reasons people developed, practiced and continue to research what christian is. But at the end of the day it boils down to this:
Jesus dies for each of us, by name, personally, individually,
We are called to put off those things which deny Christ and which cause us to do wrong stuff (that's called 'sin')
we are called to lead others into knowledge and relationship with Christ so that we might be one with the Father, enabled by the Spirit.
We are called to warn and correct those who are caught up in sin (gently) so that we don't become sin in doing it.
Neither for or against - don't think we can live with that as a mantra, do you?
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)